Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you can’t accept a literal interpretation of Genesis, then your chances of understanding my version of it are zero.
Click to expand...
Oh, I understand your version; I just disagree with it.

That’s not to say that you aren’t permitted to hold to your version; where you get into trouble is when you demand that all accept your version as the one that the Church holds.
Someone who takes Scripture seriously
Click to expand...
I am someone who takes Scripture seriously – why else would I spend all this effort correcting the erroneous claims made in this thread?
might give my theory a fair hearing, but not an anti-creationist like you.
Click to expand...
I’m not an “anti-creationist” – I believe that God created everything from nothing. Where you and I disagree is that you are a fundamentalist literalistic ‘creationist’, whereas I see the creation narratives as telling us about creation in an allegorical way. 🤷‍♂️
I know from my dealings with the folks at Biologos that theistic evolutionists have next-to-no-interest in taking Scripture seriously
Click to expand...
If by ‘seriously’ you mean, “with reverence and solemnity”, then you’re very mistaken.

If, on the other hand, by ‘seriously’ you mean “in a purely literalistic fashion”… then yeah, you’re right.
they can’t stand creationists either.
Click to expand...
Many different types of folks – from a variety of faith traditions and backgrounds – disagree with a fundamentalist-style purely literalistic Scriptural hermeneutic. In this thread, you’re running into folks who believe in God and Jesus and the Catholic Church just as strongly as you do… but who don’t buy into your take on Scripture. 🤷‍♂️
 
Techno2000 said:
One would think St. Thomas Aquinas would have figured it all out.
Click to expand...
He did. I refer you to Dei veritate, q. 12, a. 2: “Those things, however, that cannot pertain to salvation are alien to the matter of salvation.”

Very similar (of course) to Dei Verbum and the catechsim.
 
Glark said:
Evidently, God didn’t pick up on it either - there is not an iota of evidence in the Bible about evoluion. There is however, lots of evidence for six days of creation. Golly gosh, I wonder which one of theses two competing ideas wants us to believe?
Click to expand...
Golly gosh… do ya think that means that God is telling us that the Bible is about salvation, not science?!? 🤔 😉
 
ericc said:
There was no computer simulation. Wasn’t done.
Click to expand...
Mathematical simulation would be more accurate, you’re right. David Berlinski is the chief critic. Although he seems to be a mathematician, he seems to appear only on right-wing or creationist web sites. I’ll leave others to delve into it. The criticism seems to focus on assumptions (which of course would be necessary) and the fact that the details of the math were not in the paper (which doesn’t seem unusual to me).

Here is the paper on the Royal Society web site:

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/256/1345/53
 
Last edited:
Gorgias said:
Umm… pardon?

If one change = one generation = one year, and it took 364,000 generations in the experiment, how is 500,000 years in ‘real time’ a “tiny fraction” of that time? After all, 500,000 > 364,000… not to mention that the two numbers are of the same order of magnitude…!
Click to expand...
That’s what happens when I post after my bedtime. You’re right.
 
Techno2000 said:
So all the Great scholars of the Catholic Church completely missed something so monumental as evolution ?
Click to expand...
Everyone before 1859 missed it. They also missed atomic energy, magnetism, electricity, galaxies, molecules…shall I go on?

Evolution isn’t in the Bible because it has no relevance to Salvation, which is what the Bible’s about. It’s not about science.
 
Gorgias said:
If you can’t accept a literal interpretation of Genesis, then your chances of understanding my version of it are zero.
Click to expand...
Oh, I understand your version; I just disagree with it.

That’s not to say that you aren’t permitted to hold to your version; where you get into trouble is when you demand that all accept your version as the one that the Church holds.
Someone who takes Scripture seriously
Click to expand...
I am someone who takes Scripture seriously – why else would I spend all this effort correcting the erroneous claims made in this thread?
might give my theory a fair hearing, but not an anti-creationist like you.
Click to expand...
I’m not an “anti-creationist” – I believe that God created everything from nothing. Where you and I disagree is that you are a fundamentalist literalistic ‘creationist’, whereas I see the creation narratives as telling us about creation in an allegorical way. 🤷‍♂️
I know from my dealings with the folks at Biologos that theistic evolutionists have next-to-no-interest in taking Scripture seriously
Click to expand...
If by ‘seriously’ you mean, “with reverence and solemnity”, then you’re very mistaken.

If, on the other hand, by ‘seriously’ you mean “in a purely literalistic fashion”… then yeah, you’re right.
they can’t stand creationists either.
Click to expand...
Many different types of folks – from a variety of faith traditions and backgrounds – disagree with a fundamentalist-style purely literalistic Scriptural hermeneutic. In this thread, you’re running into folks who believe in God and Jesus and the Catholic Church just as strongly as you do… but who don’t buy into your take on Scripture. 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
Another fine post by one of the best posters on the site.
 
Rau said:
Certainly it begs the question of what “events” are a result of God’s direct actions and what are not. Is God deciding who will starve to death or is that on us? Is God deciding to whom terrible accidents will occur, or is that life? Is God more active or more permissive? I have absolutely no need to reject miracles but nor do I think that God’s activism runs to the extent some presume.
Click to expand...
This is of course a different topic, but it’s what disturbs me the most. Expressions like “It will all turn out,” or “It’s for the best,” or “Things happen for a reason” drive me crazy. It’s the most common modern superstition. You’ve got it–if you start attributing everything to the direct intervention of God, you’ve got a world full of problems. And of course you’re left with another issue: why would God do that? Because he messed up in the original creation? Because he had a new idea he wanted to try out? Because Auntie Meg prayed she would get a new Cadillac? None of it makes any sense. I don’t want to discuss all this here, just giving my point of view.
 
Techno2000 said:
I remember reading some private revelation where the Virgin Mary said that the Bible is so true that it shouldn’t even be kept by other books.
Click to expand...
And THAT is why I don’t believe in any private revelation!
 
Glark said:
Apparently Thomas Aquinas wasn’t smart enuf to see evolution in the Word. A primitive and intellectualy unsophisticated soul, poor Thomas.
Click to expand...
To be fair, Aquinas seems to have held to some stances in the field of science that today, we know are untrue. Take a look at his understanding of conception and fetal development – they’re way off, and they led to him having a hard time accepting the Immaculate Conception.

The fact that a 13th-century philosopher and theologian had a 13th-century grasp of the physical sciences (and not a 21st-century understanding) is not at all surprising. What is surprising is that you think that (1) the Bible is a science book and (2) anyone reading the Bible would be expected to glean scientific knowledge from it.
 
A final comment–I’m bowing out of all this!

I can now see why Catholic Answers used to ban threads about evolution! Pointless.

The original thread was whether an orthodox Catholic could accept the theory of evolution.

Well, we’ve seen three popes accepted it. We’ve seen that there is no conflict between the Bible and science (unless of course you take the Bible literally!!!). And we’ve seen a lot of people who consider themselves very orthodox (and even conservative) Catholics take the side of evolution (like me).

Really all this is about whether you take the Bible literally or not. I’ve quoted Aquinas, the Pontifical Biblical Commission, Dei Verbum from Vatican II, and the catechism. All of which say it shouldn’t be taken literally. And yet a lot of people still do. Inexplicable. But clearly no amount of logic or evidence will change their minds. Believe what you want to believe, and good luck to you!
 
The Church has not been “bending over backwards” regarding this. It is constantly being challenged by those looking for anything to confirm the Church agrees with it. Not so. As early as 1950, Pope Pius XII wrote in Humani Generis:

“36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.”

In other words, there is a for and against and the Church has the authority to have the final say.

Pope Benedict, regarding the often quoted statement by Pope John Paul II, added that - especially regarding the human body - that this alleged series of changes cannot be reproduced in the lab and so cannot be verified.

And yes, Adam and Eve were two literal individuals who were responsible for Original Sin which is passed on to all by generation since we all descend from that couple. It is necessary for our salvation to know this. One: we have a physical body and a spiritual body or soul which is immediately created by God. Two: Jesus Christ was not born into this world for no particular reason. Because of Original Sin, He died as a sacrifice for all and rose from the dead, literally. John the Baptist baptized with water but Jesus told us baptism would be with water and the Holy Spirit. He established His Church and gave us much more information about how to live because He was true man and true God.

But I can guarantee one thing: these threads will appear again and again. And again. This suggests supporting atheism.

Ed
 
Last edited:
Your mistakenly equating two different classes of words. Science is the study of the natural frame of reference of reality experienced through the natural senses and rationality to the extent we have been made capable. The supernatural as far as Christianity is concerned is a reference frame of reality studied by theology and faith in supernatural revelation which as far as it does not overlap natural reality is often, by natural realities rules, experienced by us as irrational but never the less a legitimate aspect of reality. Given that both science and theology are products of mans conscious creative activity and in themselves are neither evil nor good except that men make use of them so they are both related products of Gods creation of conscious man. Given that the supernatural and the natural frames of reference are also both the products of Gods creative act they also are related. While they may seem completely unrelated this is only because of mans limited capacity to know the unifying underlying principles of these realities which ultimately stems from God. If they were completely unrelated the one would not effect the other and yet men claim miracles experienced through the natural senses for example .
 
I would say God created the universe to follow certain rules of which man may naturally discover. Science is what this discovery process has been labeled by man. To deny the principles of science through rationality is to deny God creating man a rational creature. Science is no more the all consuming evil that you make it out to be than is the theology with which your using to establish your view that natural evolution is a product of Satan whispering in the ear.
 
It can in this respect - If science can explain rationally a supernatural event as one that is actually natural or conversely if science can reasonable prove that no known and currently understood natural process can account for the so called supernatural experience then it may be science that is the only process by which man can measure or study the supernatural and be able to convey this information to another.
 
Dang I had to go back 200 posts to reply to what I think has already been covered. I’ve lost my place in this discussion. Is it possible for anyone to bring me up to speed on the progress of opinions? Has any ones changed one way or the other?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top